WZ-IT Logo
§43 WPO · §323 HGB · §50a WPO

AI for Auditors - client figures stay in-house

Audit data is client financial data and trade secrets at once - protected by §43 WPO, §323 HGB and §203 StGB. AI must run locally here.

No outflow of client financial dataIntegration into audit software§50a obligation as a clear liability basis
Explore the AI Cube

Leading companies worldwide trust WZ-IT

  • Rekorder
  • Keymate
  • Führerscheinmacher
  • SolidProof
  • ARGE
  • Boese VA
  • NextGym
  • Maho Management
  • Golem.de
  • Millenium
  • Paritel
  • Yonju
  • EVADXB
  • Mr. Clipart
  • Aphy
  • Negosh
  • ABCO Water
The situation

Why cloud AI becomes a risk here

Working papers and report drafts tie up auditor hours but contain highly confidential client figures.

Financial data is trade secrets - an outflow is doubly critical (§43 WPO + secrets protection).

Recurring research in audit standards (IDW PS) is time-consuming.

Legal framework

§203 StGB & AI: the full mechanics

Most providers only say „§203 = no cloud“. What matters is the mechanics behind it - and how to fulfil them cleanly by contract and technically.

What §203 StGB prohibits

§203 StGB criminalises the unauthorised disclosure of others' secrets by professionals bound to secrecy - client, patient and party data, trade secrets. „Unauthorised“ means: without consent of the secret-holder and without legal authority. Penalty: up to one year imprisonment or a fine (subs. 1), up to two years for acting for payment (subs. 5). Offence prosecuted on application (§205 StGB), plus professional-law consequences up to withdrawal of the licence.

Why cloud AI is the problem

Inputs to ChatGPT, Copilot & co. are processed on third-party servers (often in the US). This transmission can already be a disclosure within the meaning of §203 StGB - regardless of whether the provider actively uses the data. A DPA under Art. 28 GDPR changes nothing: §203 goes beyond data-protection law and prohibits disclosure to third parties additionally and independently. A DPA is not §203 - both are required.

What the 2017 reform allows

Since the reform an IT service provider, as a „contributing person“ (§203 (3) s. 2 StGB), may receive access to protected information WITHOUT this being a punishable disclosure - if three conditions are met: (1) necessity for the service, (2) obligation in text form with instruction on the criminal consequences (§126b BGB), (3) careful selection, supervision and immediate termination on breach.

The flip side - your risk

Whoever does NOT oblige the contributing person becomes liable themselves under §203 (4) no. 1 StGB. Not the employee who enters data into a tool bears responsibility - but the professional (firm/practice owner). What is punishable is not the input into a secured system, but the missing contractual safeguard.

Skin in the game

With the reform, the contributing person is itself included in liability under §203 (4) s. 2 StGB. As your obliged service provider we are jointly liable - that is not a risk for you, but your safeguard.

The subcontractor chain

If a provider brings in subcontractors (Azure, AWS, Vercel), THESE must also be obliged in text form. With US hyperscalers this is practically not feasible - and the US CLOUD Act applies, enabling access by US authorities; EU residency does not protect against that. On-premise on your hardware has no such chain: the data does not leave your building. Our remote-maintenance access still makes us a contributing person - which is why we commit contractually, for the build and maintenance phase.

Your professional-law layer

  • Base norm: §43 WPO + §323 HGB (statutory auditor)
  • Provider norm: §50a WPO
  • Particularity: Client financial data = simultaneously trade secrets.

Our §203 compliance package

Standard part of every build / AI Cube contract - for build and maintenance phase:

AVV (Art. 28 DSGVO)

Data-protection layer

Secrecy obligation

Text form + criminal instruction (§203/§126b)

Subcontractor proof

short chain / on-prem

This content is general information and not legal or tax advice. The specific obligation of contributing persons under §203 StGB and the respective professional-law requirements must be reviewed by a lawyer/tax advisor on a case-by-case basis.

Use cases

What the local AI handles for you

All local on your hardware - no data outflow.

Analysis and summarisation of working papers
RAG research in audit standards (IDW PS) and internal methodology
Drafts for audit reports and management letters
Data and document analysis to support the audit
Internal knowledge base on audit know-how
Our approach

Advise. Build. Operate. From one team.

Sovereign AI is a lifecycle, not a device purchase - and everything stays on your infrastructure.

01

Advise & design

Workshop, sizing, data classification and §203 contract framework. We understand your stack, professional software and compliance requirements before we recommend.

02

Build & integrate

On-premise build on your hardware, RAG on your documents with access control, integration into your professional software, secrecy obligation + DPA.

03

Operate & maintain (optional)

Updates, monitoring, model upgrades and RAG maintenance as a service contract - or you operate fully yourself. Handover and knowledge transfer included.

Frequently asked questions

Let's Talk About Your Idea

Whether a specific IT challenge or just an idea - we look forward to the exchange. In a brief conversation, we'll evaluate together if and how your project fits with WZ-IT.

E-Mail
[email protected]

Leading companies trust WZ-IT

  • Rekorder
  • Keymate
  • Führerscheinmacher
  • SolidProof
  • ARGE
  • Boese VA
  • NextGym
  • Maho Management
  • Golem.de
  • Millenium
  • Paritel
  • Yonju
  • EVADXB
  • Mr. Clipart
  • Aphy
  • Negosh
  • ABCO Water
Timo Wevelsiep & Robin Zins - CEOs of WZ-IT

Timo Wevelsiep & Robin Zins

Managing Directors of WZ-IT

1/3 - Topic Selection33%

What is your inquiry about?

Select one or more areas where we can support you.